- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100072 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: UJJAPPA S/O BASAVANEEPPA HALAGERI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, R/O: CHIKKAKURUVATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CPI OF RURAL P.S., RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.246/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.72/2016 ON THE FILE OF II- Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 14:07:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.11.2016 IN C.C.NO.246/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 279 & 304- A OF IPC, AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 & 304-A OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction recorded for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) in C.C. No.246/2015, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.72/2016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition, are as follows: 4. A complaint was lodged with the Ranebennur Police Station by Shantappa S/o Hanumanthappa Kudrihal on 27.06.2015 alleging that, during the evening hours, Nagendrappa and Umesh were standing and speaking in front of the house of Nagendrappa Arkachari. At that time, his elder brother’s son, namely Siddappa, was proceeding on the road by pushing his TVS XL Luna two-wheeler bearing registration No.KA-27-EC-9360 on the left side of the road. At that juncture, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27-F-260, driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against Siddappa, as a result of which he fell down. 5. It is further alleged that both Siddappa and his vehicle fell to the ground and that the driver of the bus drove the bus over the body of Siddappa, causing him to sustain grievous injuries, to which he succumbed on the spot. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 6. The incident occurred at about 7.15 p.m., and the complaint was lodged at about 7.45 p.m. at the Ranebennur Police Station. 7. After conducting a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The presence of the accused was secured and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried; therefore, the trial was conducted. 8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, a total of eleven witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-11 and eighteen documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-18. 9. On conclusion of the recording of evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded, wherein the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against. However, the accused has taken a contention that the deceased, being under the influence of liquor, himself dashed against the parked bus, as a result of which he sustained the injuries. The accused did not choose to lead - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 any defense evidence. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of both the parties and by order dated 09.11.2016, convicted the accused and sentenced as under: “Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC. For having committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 279 of IPC, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under to SI for 2 months. For having committed the offences punishable U/Sec 304(A) of IPC, accused is sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall under to SI for 4 months. The bail bonds of the accused and his surety stands cancelled.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the accused before the II Additional District - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur)1, in Criminal Appeal No.72/2016. 11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by judgment dated 27.03.2018 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 13. He further contended that the evidence of PW4 does not support the prosecution case, inasmuch as despite being an eyewitness, he turned hostile. Therefore, there is no other substantive evidence on record so as to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences. 1 For short, ‘The First Appellate Court’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 14. He would further contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, the Court may impose some heavy fine and part of which has already been paid as compensation to the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, he sought for allowing the revision petition. 15. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State supports the impugned order. 16. He would further contend that a false plea has been taken by the accused that it is the deceased who dashed his two wheeler against the parked bus but the same is not established by the dependents by placing defense evidence on record. 17. He would further point out that the material on record, on the contrary, indicates that it was the revision petitioner who drove the bus rashly and dashed against the deceased resulting in death of the deceased. Therefore, revision petition needs to be dismissed. 18. Insofar as, alternative submission is concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 if any leniency shown for the people like petitioner, then it would send a wrong message to the society and encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 19. Having heard the arguments of both the sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC attract the petitioner? 2) Whether the impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity and perversity? 3) Whether the sentence is excessive? 4) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 21. In the case on hand, death of Siddappa in a road traffic accident involving a two wheeler bearing registration - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 No.KA-27/EC-9360 and KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-27-F-260 is not in dispute. 22. The unfortunate incident has occurred around 07.15 p.m. According to the complainant, Siddappa was pushing his two wheeler on the left side of the road and at that juncture, because of the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner, he dashed against him whereby Siddappa fell down and also his two wheeler, and the bus ran over on his body and thereby sustained injuries. 23. Sketch and photographs produced along with the charge sheet papers would sufficiently establish and probablise the theory put forward on behalf of the prosecution. 24. Merely, on the ground that PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution in entirety would not ipso facto make out a case for the grant of acquittal as is contented by learned counsel for revision petitioner. 25. The defense that has been raised in the case is that, it is the deceased under the influence of liquor, came - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 and dashed against the parked bus. But the said defense is not taken by the defense counsel by placing any material evidence. 26. Further, if the version of the accused is to be accepted, the blood marks on the tyre would not have been there. At the most, the accused would have suffered a head injury and would have died and there would not be any blood stains on the hind tyre of the bus. On the contrary, blood stains are very much found on the bus tyre, which is visible in the photograph itself, which would advance the case of prosecution. 27. These aspects of the matter would make out a clear case that it is the revision petitioner who ran over the Siddappa who was pushing his vehicle on the left side of the road as could be seen from the sketch and because of the accidental injuries, Siddappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 28. In the absence of any previous enmity why would the complainant falsely implicate the revision petitioner in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 the road traffic accident, is a question that remains unanswered. 29. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction order recorded by both the Courts needs no interference. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and negative respectively. Regarding Point No.3: 30. In the case on hand, the learned Trial Judge has granted 1 year imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. 31. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment of 1 year needs to be scaled down to 6 months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Therefore, Point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. 2 (2015) 5 SCC 182 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 32. In view of findings of this Court on Point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC, the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is reduced from one year to six months and rest of the fine and sentence stands unaltered. (iii) The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 31.01.2026, positively failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence and send him to the prison. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:232 CRL.RP No. 100072 of 2018 (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC-upto para 8 SMM-para 9 to till end CT-CMU LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 8